Dog Whistle or Muted Clarion Call?

The Trump…eter has done it again.This time it’s not only irresponsible, it’s dangerous and criminal.His” Maybe the second amendment people can do something” is clearly a call to gun violence against a future Hillary Clinton Presidency.It is the same call that Sarah Engel issued against Harry Reid.That call resulted in her overwhelming defeat as a “nut”.
The message is that “they” are going to take away” your” guns destroying “your” constitutionally given second amendment gun rights.Most serious constitutional scholars do not believe that the constitution’s gun rights were individual rights as such but basically militia rights that would enable locally constituted militias to oppose tyrannical assault by foreign or domestic tyrants without the financially based muster capability that might come from a central or for that matter a local government.The were not Kashkalnikoff or AR 15 rights they were ball and powder musket ordinance intended. More important is the control of the Supreme Court with Roe vs Wade,Citizen’s United,Voting Rights suppression to be revisited,Immigration Law to be ratified after being voted.In the absence of the kind of control that Scalia guaranteed,die hard Republicans can only obstruct by refusing to function should a Clinton victory provide the feared judiciary plurality.And so the murderous Trump rhetoric emerges.Karen Ross don’t give up yet!

Post navigation

12 Comments

This is in reference to Daedal2207’s comment, Aug 13, 6:04
If “unwarranted” and “untrue”, why present the assertion as if it were true? But let’s look at it anyway. Bill Gates used his skills at technology and business to “put into society” a growth of activity that, reflected in the entire country’s GDP, far exceeded the billions that he took out of it personally. Literally billions of people have benefited and will continue to benefit by virtue of their now being better able to make additional “contributions” of their own well into the future. Competitive private sector activity is not “authoritative” in the sense that it cannot demand that we buy its product. Monopolistic government can fine and put you into jail if you do not perform as it dictates. In fact, government is inclined to be authoritative. That is why our founders chose to create a small and divided-power government. For the sake of protecting the benefits of private sector competitiveness they wanted to avoid the economically (and authoritatively) unfair competition of a monopolistic government.
I think Paul Krugman would be wrong (and misleading) as to money being “what it is all about”. More accurately it is all about “the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses”. This reveals that money is just one of many forms of resource (but it is important, as it helps us to compare the relative value of disparate interests).
Of course, perfect equity for human activity is impossible, so the term is used in reference to goals measured by degree.

Neither Ford nor Gates could create fortunes without workers and consumers.Does that entitle them to equal equity? Of course not, but human resource departments are not unions and represent management more than they do workers.Today’s top executives make many more times the multiple of their workers as did the moguls of yesteryear.A multiple not at all tied to performance.
Why present something that I do not believe as though I were treating it as credible? Clearly to push it to the point where the absurdity of the premise is obvious.It is now clear that DS refers to “authoritative” and “coercive” rather than to power. So we’re talking about power.But the power of custom and privilege is real and authoritative if not authoritarian. Power rooted in gerrymandered electoral districts, voter restriction,tax law protection etc etc is real power and what DS is talking about is the inability to oppose this power by any means other than the power of central government,( It could be at at state level but is not likely to be)which he then presents with the emotionally flavored descriptor of coercive,authoritative Federal government intervention.
,

Top executives are bid for as are top athletes. If the boards of directors are bidding more for talent than that talent is worth to the company they are handicapping their company’s competitiveness. If businesses become too big to fail, in that sense they have become monopolistic and thus ripe for greater degrees of corruption (Such as salaries that are not tied to performance). Possibly related: Why are many of the wealthiest zip codes located around Washington DC?
We are in a sense always talking about “power” given that nothing could be recognized as distinct from another had not some form of power been activated. Our task is that of determining how to guide powers such that the future for humanity plays out to be better and not worse. Daedal2207 is correct in pointing out that social mores and laws controlling “districts” for political reasons are forms of power that need guidance. However, I am not indicating that “the only means” to oppose the misuse of such power is through central government. Forms of government are many. By avoiding the monopolistic forms we can reduce the corruptions that trend to areas of concentrated power.

In response to this post, I’m submitting a couple of my emails I sent to a dear friend (even if he is a Republican!) this morning. I have deleted his name and any of his family members out of respect for his privacy:

On Aug 10, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Susanna Belk wrote:

———————- … hardly a left-wing rag!!! It’s a question of temperament, maturity, sobriety, common sense … we’re not talking here of policy discussions. As much as I adore my grandson Asher, I wouldn’t (at his present developmental level) vote for him as dog catcher, let alone president of the United States. No person with the slightest sense of civility and awareness of the consequences of words should entice violence of any kind … and, that’s how a large portion of his crowd reacts … like marauding hooligans … and, you know it. He might be fun at your camp cookouts, but that doesn’t make him qualified to be president. And, many, many sober people in your party … latest being Senator Collins … have come to that painful realization. Personally, I’ll take the nerd (maybe because birds of a feather flock together!)

If not enticing violence, at the very least, he’s promoting ignorance. NO ONE … that includes me … is promoting the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, no president has the power … with the stroke of a pen … to abolish a constitutional amendment. Such POWERFUL action requires action promoted and taken by each individual state … and then, acceptance of such action by 75% of the states. Fat chance!!! That’s why the Equal Rights Amendment (guaranteeing equality to women … you know, pay and all that! … the stuff that would matter to ——-) FAILED. Couldn’t meet the threshold. Sooooooo … as you well know … any attempt to abridge current constitutional guarantees gets brought before the Supreme Court. Of course, the darling of the right’s judicial interpretation (talk about activist judges!!!) on free speech (1st Amendment) guarantee) is Citizens United, which opened the flood gates to obscene amounts of money in the election cycles, further prostituting the whole process. And, you know who makes tons and tons of money on that one? Yep … the media.

In other words, Professor Steed … “Many a true word is spoken in jest.” It only takes one nutty follower to interpret the “joke” as a call to arms … and, he’s got plenty of those … especially the ones who would still be with him even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue!

daedal2207: “Most serious constitutional scholars do not believe that the constitution’s gun rights were individual rights as such but basically militia rights that would enable locally constituted militias to oppose tyrannical assault by foreign or domestic tyrants without the financially based muster capability that might come from a central or for that matter a local government.The were not Kashkalnikoff or AR 15 rights they were ball and powder musket ordinance intended.”

YES … in those days of yore, before the National Guard! Oh, the romantic yearning of the Wild, Wild West! Is anarchy being promoted? For surely, assassinations are no dark jokes … with murder being sanctioned by adoring followers.

SB: “No person with the slightest sense of civility and awareness of the consequences of words should entice violence of any kind … and, that’s how a large portion of his crowd reacts … like marauding hooligans …”
I agree that the actions of those who profess a particular belief give evidence to the character of that belief. On that premise I have often speculated about the reasons why in the college and university environment it is only the conservative spokespeople who need body guards. That is, if they are allowed by opponents (often faculty) to speak at all. Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and even Condi Rice have found themselves facing crowds of “marauding hooligans”.
During the 2008 election I set up a camera to see who was stealing or kicking down my “Vote for McCain” signs. I have videos that show six different thefts or destructions of signs in a two week period. All were by different individuals, youngish, well dressed professional types of both sexes. What words had they heard? The consequence was such a self-righteousness that they were at ease trespassing, destroying property, and violating another’s right to free speech! Could it be that they actually believed the repeated slander that Republicans are unworthy racists, bigots, homo-phobic, sexists, etc.? Yes, words have power, and violence takes many forms.
Is it a Vote for Hillary or a Vote for Trump sign that is most likely to be vandalized? The answer to that question will tell us much about what the believers ACTUALLY believe.

DS: “… I set up a camera to see who was stealing or kicking down my ‘Vote for McCain’ signs.”

Yep. Been there … have had that happened to us … but with “Obama/Biden” signs on our lawn (which is on our town’s Main Street). Inexcusable, rude shenanigans from both sides. And? How does that “apple” compare with the “orange” of a dog whistle for violence/attack? Talk about spin.

DS: “Is it a Vote for Hillary or a Vote for Trump sign that is most likely to be vandalized?”

The answer to that question is “yes” … given the amount of sophistication with which we behave in our country.

DS: “The answer to that question will tell us much about what the believers ACTUALLY believe.”

We have not discussed issues here. The focus is on the character and temperament of the man who is seeking … whether we like it or not … the most powerful position in the world. All we have to go by is trusting our lying eyes (and/or ears?) … and, they tell us that Trump, by all measures, is not qualified. If his indecent and disrespectful behavior does not concern you, perhaps the threat of the instability that he will usher to our and global financial markets/institutions will. That’s the unspoken Republican conundrum. And, with this, I’m getting out of the sandbox.

If we do not laugh, we might cry. I prefer laughing, and the human comedy is marvelous to behold as long as one is among a safe audience. I see valid reasons for both political sides to be concerned that the audience is now in jeopardy. Trump is truly disgusting as one who is not only at ease with, but apparently enjoys insult and uses hyperbole to the extreme. Our other choice for President is a person who has a long history of actions that describe scandals and dishonesty. There is evidence to support the belief that Hillary, by using her position as Secretary of State, sold American interests to foreign interests thereby enriching what is in effect a slush fund called the Clinton Foundation. Isn’t it interesting that the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned during the Democratic Convention.
It is a given that both options for President are disturbing. We must decide which disturbance will be least damaging. Against that very ugly, temporary issue of character there remains one of deeper meaning, greater substance. Do we jettison the original intent of individual liberty (and responsibilities), small limited government, and free enterprise? Or, do we continue our current accelerated transformation into an elite-led, authoritative, central planning, redistributionist government? Should the Supreme Court as originally intended, judge law? Or should it, if “living constitution” judges prevail, “make law”? All of these issues are on the ballot this year. Is the American level of wisdom up to the challenge? The audience is in jeopardy.

If the unwarranted and untrue assertion that those who put more into the society are those who are taking more out is at all credible then what are they other than an elite and what is their power other than authoritative? Paul Krugman has it right; it’s all about money and its preservation and the fear of a distributive shift, never mind equity, which only the insane would believe possible !

The (left dominated) airways erupt again! Trump, with some dark humor, hinted that there could be an armed rebellion against those who would (by inserting “living Constitution” judges) nullify the second amendment.
How egregious really was this suggestion? The political left apparently loved the British-produced film (2006) that depicted Bush W. actually being assassinated. In Toronto It won the Prize of the International Critics. I seem to remember Obama in 2008 saying something like this about Republican opposition: “If they bring a knife to the fight we bring a gun.” Should we have taken that literally?
On several occasions Daedal2207 has pointed out the danger that segments of society, if they feel repressed, might engage in armed rebellion. Is this encouraging them to such behavior? Should we be outraged?
And yes, Republicans need to obstruct new interpretations of the Constitution that would create more problems than are solved. For instance, putting government in charge of who gets what degree of resources (money) needed to run an election is like assigning to the fox the job of protecting the chickens.
The “transformation” of our original-intent-constitution into something else is a big deal. Judges selected because they believe that their primary duty is promoting social justice are a world apart from those judges who believe that their primary duty is that of JUSTICE.

Even Proteus cannot hide the primary concern of a certain brand of Republican as being that of “who gets what”this despite the history of the rise and fall of societies being that of increasing discouragement on the part of the masses with increasing appropriation of goods and services by a smaller and smaller group of privileged.The Trump..eter has a loyal follower DS, if your JUSTICE is the same as his Law and Order!.

If Daedal2207’s statement “who gets what” refers to those-individuals-who-contribute-the-most-will-get-the-most (regardless their group), his concept of what it means to be Republican would be correct. (For this purpose free-market capitalism works.) If he has chosen an equality-of-group-measured-performance as the criteria by which we determine one’s sense of equitable goodness, the fact that some “groups” might contribute more than others (and thus reap more) becomes a negative. Democrats desire to build sufficient government authority to force a redistributive correction. They call this “social justice”. (Socialism, as opposed to capitalism, advances this cause.) Republicans would call this dictatorial. It conflicts with equitable individual liberty (justice). They believe that forced redistribution tends to squelch incentive, is inefficient, and thus reduces the amount and quality of resources that we will all need as we strive to create that environment which contains the greatest range of humanity-satisfying nourishment. Daedal2207 is correct in his observation that the “masses” may envy those who contribute more and thus get the most, but that does not negate the value of increased product made available to them and to all others. Of these two paths the corruptions that are linked to monopolistic power (big government) are more likely to inflict on us the various forms of “privilege” that destroy the equal application of justice.